On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:56:52AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Is anybody concerned about the compatibility implications of fixing this > bug in the back branches? I'm worried about people complaining that we > broke their application in a minor release. Maybe they were depending > on incorrect behavior, but they might complain anyway. On the other > hand, the fact that this hasn't been reported from the field in nine > years suggests that not many people write queries like this.
Nice detective work. I'd personally say that it should be fixed. I personally haven't written these kinds of queries so I'm not affected, but I don't like the idea of known bugs being unfixed. It's a pity we can't have a system that can somehow independantly checks the results of the planner.... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <klep...@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > He who writes carelessly confesses thereby at the very outset that he does > not attach much importance to his own thoughts. -- Arthur Schopenhauer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
